ZOMBIE FORUMS

My point was more that it was seen as a noble pursuit if you could afford to do so. Most of the poorer citizens were far to busy staying alive to actually pursue it. It was still a universal thing to aspire to. Women were discouraged from it unfortunately.

I know that really prolific philosophizers were quite rare, but the fact that they were respected and looked up to, still places Athenian society a step over ours.

But we have elctricity so :P to them

Yeah, look at how they "respected" Socrates.

Socrates was executed for his religious teachings not his humanistic views.

Explain.

Well Socrates and most of the Athenian aristocracy were known for their philosophical studies and speeches on Humanism; the examination of man and his potential and abilities.

For the most part that was an entirely new realm of thinking. However Scorates began to speak out about how human's had more sway over the world and themselves than Gods. He stated that a man's potential was not limited by any divine force. That was a rather large mistake considering the religion was accepted fact.

If he was really executed for his views on humanity and speaking about how men should strive to realize their potential then their would have been quite a few more executions. After all both Aristotle and Plato lived long lives and had a great impact on the future of philosophy.

My point just is that intellects these days gain less respect than athletes. I personally feel that shows a degeneration of society. Then again right now my views are rather bias considering I go to a school full of rednecks. :( :( :( :(

Actually, it was more that Athenians didn't feel like killing Socrates for being an intellectual was a good enough reason, so they had to accuse him of heresy. I mean, they couldn't just overtly kill him for being a humanist, now could they? The fact is, Athens was full of the same sort of rampant fundamentalism and distrust for intellectuals as the average rural southern town. In some ways rural southern towns are more enlightened. After all, I don't think you're allowed to kill someone for being an atheist anywhere in the Bible Belt. There are parodies of Socrates (e.g. Aristophanes' "Clouds") which portray him as a stereotypical "eggheaded intellectual". By the way, Aristotle was almost executed by the Athenians. In fact, he had to live outside Athens at the end of his life because of this.

Yes, there was an Academy in Athens where learning was encouraged and intellectuals were honored, and in this specific context some very wonderful and admirable ideas were being developed. But then again learning is encouraged and intellectuals honored in the best colleges in America today, and modern ideas in science and philosophy are just as interesting. History has a tendency to remember the intellectuals and forget the masses, because it's the intellectuals who are writing the history. As I said before, 1500 years from now people will probably think that most people today looked up to Stephen Hawking or Jacques Derrida.

The fact is, looking at any era as a "golden age of civilization" is almost as dangerous as saying that the history of the human race has consisted of a steady and even progress toward perfection.

Hey I didn't say Athens was the golden age of civilization. I was using it as an example of how the general aspirations of man have changed. I really don't think that 1500 years from now people will think we looked up to Stephen Hawking. I understand what you are saying, but I find it very hard to accept that a society like the Athenian society in the Periclean age was as shallow and philistine as ours is right now.

I really wasn't intending to open up a can of worms about the philosophical contributions of Athens, I was just pointing out that modern society is hardly encouraging intellectual advancement. Though granted by that example our governmental system has made some improvements as far as eliminating bias.

One last point, intellectuals may be honoured in colleges but how much do professional sport players make in comparison to teachers.

btw, thanks for the name of Aristophanes play. I remember reading a while ago about one in which the actor was elevated above the crowd to portray Socrates, but the name of the play wasn't included.

Oh... hard to say something here that hasn't already been said.

If we were all unthinking robots, a little genetic weeding wouldn't be a bad idea. Unfortunatly, we happen to be human, and what cold logic can produce is justifiably horrifing to us (In general)

Perhaps, at least in the area of accumalitive defects, technology is well on its way to what basicly boils down to 'DNA repair', Getting rid of obvoius defects... I dont see any Sickle Cell activist groups about. Of course, this does not eliminate the person... the person is cured, and no longer passed the defect down the generations.

When this comes about, however, This would perhaps have to be the most regulated, transparent and scrutinised modern medical industry to emerge (when it does) and God help us if it isn't, because think of how open this could be to abuse. I dont want a world full of Aryans, I just want a world of healthy children.

Before i start i'd just like to say there is another way of genetic cleansing which hasnt been mentioned yet; Screening sperm/ovum harvested from the parents for genetic flaws and only implanting 'clean' foetus.

I believe there is an arguement against genetic cleansing that hasnt been mentioned/considered, yet is an abvious and fundamental flaw;

First consider that at some theoretical point in the future a world power beging a policy of genetic cleansing (either by gene therapy, sterilisation, screening or murder). After several generations the major genetic flaws we have for diseases like sickle cell enemia or breast cancer will have been wiped out barring random genetic changes which occur all the time.

What is the next step? to erradicate other, less devastating, genetic problems? My guess, knowing human nature is that if gene therapy, screening or sterilisation is used than the genetic cleansing would continue. This may seem good, and with each sucessive generation the human genepool would becoem more refined and 'clean'.

The problem with this is thusly;
Certain genes are beneficial to help us fight off certain viruses/germs which are (seemingly) unrelated. If a new virus came along which is particularilly virulent in certain genetic hosts then it would be virulentto the whole population. Genetic diversity is normally a good thing for just this reason.

PTLIS

While that kind of nightmare scenario, quite popular in Sci-Fi plots would be well on the nasty side of 'not good' I'm pretty damn sure that this *would* be the most scrutinised and controled industry in our history, and would also (I would hope so) not be government owned.

Bear in mind also, the political isolationism and backlash against *any* country that did begin to get out of control in the way you mention. What intangible benifits gained from growing some superbabies in a lab would be offset by trade imbargos, world hostility, and even the possibilty of invasion once the world found out about it. (Governments are good at keeping secrets, except from other governements)

If I remember right, having one gene for Sickle Cell Anemia (not two) gives some resistance to malaria, meaning that having one gene for it can be beneficial in some situations.
Two probably gives the resistance too, but it's too unhealthy to be really beneficial.... (the whole inefficiently shaped blood cell thing)

But the government would have to get involved somehow. After all, under current laws forced sterilization and/or murder on the basis of genetic defect is illegal. The government would have to make an exception in the case of whatever organization is doing the "cleansing". Which would basically mean that the government was lending its implicit support to genetic cleansing. Thus, the only genetic cleansing that would be going on would be the kind the government wants or allows.

Also, if we want to go by an evolutionary standpoint, eliminating mutations is the absolute LAST thing we would want to do. Natural selection only narrows down the gene pool - mutation is needed to introduce major changes. In fact, one naturalist (I forget exactly who) once said Evolution advances in spite of Natural Selection.

Sometimes mutations that initially appear detrimental can manage to survive over several generations and mutate further until they actually become beneficial. How do we know that the genes that cause Down's Syndrome, with a few further alterations, wouldn't give us a race of supergeniuses? Eliminating mutations that humans prematurely conclude are "bad" actually works against evolution.

This is what happens when people think Evolution and Natural Selection are the same thing.

Firstly, I'm talking about genetic *REPAIR*. The patient survives, with the ability to reproduce. As I said earlier, I dont want a world of Aryans, just healthy children. And also I stated that the industry should be tightly regulated and supervised, but not government *owned*



Well, if I must take this from an evolutionary standpoint, a shaky theory at best, evolution intruduces very small changes over time. I cannot think of any mutations that did not intruduce immediate and almost always detrimental changes. How could evolution work by creating an immensly disadvantaged creature, then somehow "Hey Presto" someone with degenerative muscles syndrome gives birth to Superman...



I once helped a friend babysit a 16 year old Downs syndrome. Let me tell you from the standpoint of someone who has scrubbed human shit out of carpet while the Downs Syndrome resposible runs around the house hooting (Yes, litrally hooting) that theres no fucking supergeniuses coming from the Downers anytime soon



Pffft, no. genetic repair isn't either. Repairing defects doen't fundamentally make us 'higher, faster, stronger' It simply repairs genetic *damage*, so it isn't evolution. As the patient survives to reproduce it is most certainly NOT Natural Selection.

All that said... you did actually *read* what I posted, right? As opposed to skimmed in NarrowVision(TM)

Ah, but is this "repair" voluntary or mandatory? If it's voluntary, then there's nothing to debate: people can do what they want. I don't personally agree with it, but they can do it. If it's mandatory, then the government will have to get involved.



No. Wrong wrong wrong WRONG WRONG. This is one of the biggest errors that arises when people think that modern ideas of evolution are the same as those in, say "On the Origin of Species". Almost all modern conceptions of evolution (e.g. punctuated equilibrium) place a great, great emphasis on mutation.

That's how viruses and bacteria evolve, for example. They have far fewer safeguards against random mutation than we do, and consequently, when they need to, they can evolve millions of times more rapidly than we can. Viruses can undergo major evolutionary change within months. That's why so many people today are worried about overuse of antibiotics. Germs don't just "develop a resistance" to antibiotics. What happens is, a germ happens to mutate in such a way that it is immune to whatever chemical was being used on it before, and the descendants of this mutant germ survive whereas the germs that do not have a resistance die out.



You don't know that. Genes can have very complicated relationships. We have many genes that, if altered by only a few nucleotides, would produce very different results. The mutations that produce Down Syndrome seem to affect the mind. Conceivably, with further mutations in these same genes (building upon the original mutation), intelligence could be enhanced. Not likely, but possible.

Also, changes that are detrimental in one environment can be beneficial in another. Overly specialized, environmentally-specific adaptation is one of the things that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. After the asteroid hit, many traits which had before been considered positive (e.g. size) became negative, and vice versa.

The point I'm trying to make here is that variation in general, and mutation in particular, is fundamental to the operation of evolution. Every species starts out as a mutation of another species. Genetic cleansing is, if anything, working against the process of evolution.



Only the first part of my previous post (the part about the government) was really a response to you. The stuff after that was just a general response to the topic of the thread. Not all of this post, as well, is meant in direct response to what you've said.

Exactly. You've disproved your own contention. Thank you.

Voluntary of course.. I guess I should have outlines that earlier. Private compaines have no control over people refusing to use their services



Viruses and bacteria are organisms designed to adapt and change. They are simple and easy to replicate. I am also very familier with how they become resistany to antibiotics... If golden staph becomes *completly* resistant to everything in about 20 years it could be good-night gracie for the lot of us (But from what I know, the UN and world heath organisation always keep 3 never-before used 'super-kill' antibodies handy to prevent that kind of thing)

Ack... getting sidetracked...

The point is micro-organisms can get away with rapid changes and mutations, more complex organsisms can't. They reproduce slower, with a lot more time and energy invested in that reproduction. Mutants are usually unstable, unhealthy and die before they reproduce, if they aren't sterile. So no joy there, I'm afraid.

AS for over-specialisation... well, here we are, humanity. Jack of all trades. Nothing exists that is more diverse, than our culture, history and even appearence.




Oh, ok... just my delusions of grandour flaring up again :D

Generally. But not always. Facts are facts. In the modern interpretation of evolution, mutation is an important factor for ALL types of organisms. To get a better idea of how scientists believe evolution works, go to the talk.origins Introduction to Evolutionary Biology.



On the contrary, humanity is HIGHLY specialized. We rely almost entirely on our brainpower. Also, although human beings can live in a variety of climates, we can only thrive in very specific conditions. If we were to experience another Ice Age any time soon, I doubt that human civilization would survive unscathed.




BBelieve me, if there's one thing I can understand, it's delusions of grandeur. Hehe.

Well, as the debates headed towards evolution and I've managed already to waste a good half-hour typing about genetic repair already I've bow out and save all my ammo for a dedicated elovution thread whenever someone starts one (later, my wrists hurt).

Its not a retreat, its a tactical withdrawl!